By Elena Durnbaugh
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that Chance – an 80-pound American bulldog – is a good boy who did nothing wrong.
More or less, at least for now.
The case, In re Chance (COA Docket No. 373223), concerned a dangerous animal complaint in which Chance’s owner, Pamela Wickings, appealed a circuit court’s order for Chance to be euthanized after he bit a guest in Wickings’ home on the nose.
At the time of the incident, Chance was 3 years old and had lived with Wickings for the entirety of his life.
The guest noticed that Chance had her shoe by him. She then got down onto the floor, put her face within six inches of Chance’s face and sternly scolded him in a loud voice. Chance then bit off a portion of her nose. It is disputed whether the guest was waving the shoe when Chance bit her.
At the district court hearing, the guest denied that she was holding the shoe while scolding Chance, but Wickings’ boyfriend and her granddaughter, who both live with Wickings and Chance, testified the guest was waving the shoe.
When the granddaughter was asked if it appeared the guest was going to hit Chance with the shoe, she said that the guest wouldn’t have hit Chance, “but it looked – it would trigger, you know what I’m saying? Like, it could look like it.”
The animal control officer for the Port Huron Police Department, where the incident took place, agreed that his report indicated that the guest admitted she got into Chance’s face, had the shoe in her hand and yelled at him. The guest also admitted she provoked the incident.
The animal control officer told the court that he would not personally recommend people get in the face of a dog they don’t own.
The district court ruled that Chance was subject to an order of euthanasia as a dangerous animal, and the guest did not provoke him and suffered a permanent and serious disfigurement. The circuit court affirmed the order and denied a motion for relief from judgment filed by Wickings regarding new photographs of the guest showing that she was no longer disfigured.
In her appeal, Wickings argued that the district court erred in its findings and decisions regarding provocations, including by failing to properly utilize an object reasonable-person standard.
In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed. Judge Michael Riordan wrote that until now, the courts had yet to interpret or apply the definition of “provoke” in the Dangerous Animals Act.
The statute says an animal is not dangerous if it “bites or attacks a person who provokes or torments” it. Riordan wrote that the district court should have applied a wholly objective standard in determining whether the guest’s actions constituted provocation. The court instead had used subjective considerations.
The court reversed the circuit court’s order of affirmance and vacated the district court’s order. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to conduct an objective analysis as to whether the guest’s actions constituted provocation.
Judge Michael Gadola and Judge Anica Letica signed the opinion.
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that Chance – an 80-pound American bulldog – is a good boy who did nothing wrong.
More or less, at least for now.
The case, In re Chance (COA Docket No. 373223), concerned a dangerous animal complaint in which Chance’s owner, Pamela Wickings, appealed a circuit court’s order for Chance to be euthanized after he bit a guest in Wickings’ home on the nose.
At the time of the incident, Chance was 3 years old and had lived with Wickings for the entirety of his life.
The guest noticed that Chance had her shoe by him. She then got down onto the floor, put her face within six inches of Chance’s face and sternly scolded him in a loud voice. Chance then bit off a portion of her nose. It is disputed whether the guest was waving the shoe when Chance bit her.
At the district court hearing, the guest denied that she was holding the shoe while scolding Chance, but Wickings’ boyfriend and her granddaughter, who both live with Wickings and Chance, testified the guest was waving the shoe.
When the granddaughter was asked if it appeared the guest was going to hit Chance with the shoe, she said that the guest wouldn’t have hit Chance, “but it looked – it would trigger, you know what I’m saying? Like, it could look like it.”
The animal control officer for the Port Huron Police Department, where the incident took place, agreed that his report indicated that the guest admitted she got into Chance’s face, had the shoe in her hand and yelled at him. The guest also admitted she provoked the incident.
The animal control officer told the court that he would not personally recommend people get in the face of a dog they don’t own.
The district court ruled that Chance was subject to an order of euthanasia as a dangerous animal, and the guest did not provoke him and suffered a permanent and serious disfigurement. The circuit court affirmed the order and denied a motion for relief from judgment filed by Wickings regarding new photographs of the guest showing that she was no longer disfigured.
In her appeal, Wickings argued that the district court erred in its findings and decisions regarding provocations, including by failing to properly utilize an object reasonable-person standard.
In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed. Judge Michael Riordan wrote that until now, the courts had yet to interpret or apply the definition of “provoke” in the Dangerous Animals Act.
The statute says an animal is not dangerous if it “bites or attacks a person who provokes or torments” it. Riordan wrote that the district court should have applied a wholly objective standard in determining whether the guest’s actions constituted provocation. The court instead had used subjective considerations.
The court reversed the circuit court’s order of affirmance and vacated the district court’s order. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to conduct an objective analysis as to whether the guest’s actions constituted provocation.
Judge Michael Gadola and Judge Anica Letica signed the opinion.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
